Zephyr Of Hope For Longstanding Issues At WIPO Committee On Development And IP

A lighter mood seems to have set in at the World Intellectual Property Organization Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), after a year of what was qualified as a cycle of disagreements by some. Although delegates reiterated previous positions on some longstanding agenda items, some middle-ground alternatives seem to have gained attention.

The 14th session of the WIPO CDIP is taking place from 10-14 November.

Yesterday, draft paragraphs [pdf] were issued for the upcoming summary by the chair of the CDIP, Mohamed Siad Doualeh, the ambassador of Djibouti, to be discussed today. They reflect the work achieved by the CDIP this week, in particular progress reports of ongoing projects, and evaluation reports of finished projects.

Longstanding issues including an independent review of the implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations, or an international conference on IP and development are still being discussed informally.

Independent Review

One of the items discussed with the CDIP is an independent review of the implementation of the 2007 Development Agenda Recommendations. Previous discussions stalled on the terms of reference [pdf] of the review.

The main disagreement was on the constitution of the team undertaking the review. According to sources, developed countries have been of the view that the review team should include members with practical experience, while developing countries favoured a team experienced with IP and development issues.

According to a developing country source, the focus on team members having practical experience indicates that the review might be focused solely on technical assistance. However, the source said, the review should be broader and encompass the normative activities of WIPO for example.

After a short discussion in plenary meeting on 11 November, member states retreated to informal consultations. According to some sources, encouraging progress was made with some delegations proposing a mixed composition of the review team. Further discussions are expected to take place on 13 November.

On that issue, Japan on behalf of Group B developed countries said on 11 November that the work of WIPO needs to have strong ties in the real world, including industry and IP practitioners. The delegate presented practical experience as an essential component of the review. Italy for the European Union concurred.

Kenya for the African Group remarked that the development dimension in WIPO activities goes beyond the provision of projects. Some of WIPO’s work entails norm-setting activities, which need to be taken into account. Brazil underlined the importance of the review and said the exercise would be helpful for WIPO to mainstream development into its work.

CDIP-Related Matters

CDIP-related matters refer to the Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing and Report Modalities of the CDIP,  and have also been a longstanding discussion in the committee, with some repercussions on other committees.

The issue has been bouncing back and forth from the CDIP to the WIPO General Assembly. Causing dissension is the fact that two WIPO committees do not report to the General Assembly on their contribution to the implementation of the Development Agenda; the Program and Budget Committee (PBC) and the Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS).

Developing countries have insisted that the Coordination Mechanism applies to all WIPO committees while developed countries are holding fast to their interpretation of the Coordination Mechanism indicating that “relevant committees” should report on their development activities, and each committee could decide whether or not the Coordination Mechanism applies to them.

The issue is impacting other committees. For example, last May, the CWS had to adjourn the session for lack of agreement on the agenda. The Development Agenda Group had requested a standing agenda item on the contribution of the CWS to the implementation of the Development Agenda (IPW, WIPO, 20 May 2014).

Another issue is that developing countries have been requesting that a standing agenda item be added to the regular agenda of the CDIP on IP and development. They have argued in the past that such an agenda item would allow broader discussions on the subject, and allow the CDIP to not only concentrate on projects.

Delegations on 12 November mainly restated their positions, but said they were prepared to discuss middle-ground solutions informally. The discussions were expected to resume in plenary.

Conference on IP and Development

Yet another pending issue in the CDIP is the convening of an international conference on IP and Development. In that case, the stumbling block is the list of speakers to be invited to the conference. A draft list was proposed by the secretariat to member states some time ago.

The conference was first meant to happen in 2013 (IPW, WIPO, 17 November 2012) but the list of speakers did not meet the agreement of a number of developing countries, and the conference had to be postponed.

On 12 November, Group B said it agreed on the current list of speakers and any attempt to revise that list would be equal to micro-managing WIPO, which is organising conferences and events on a regular basis.

The fact that the list of speakers was drawn some time ago and that none of those speakers were consulted for availability or interest gave a window of possible middle-ground for member states, as some spots might be available for other speakers.

However at the heart of the issue is the fact that a number of developing countries would like that the conference includes speakers presenting a range of views on the correlation between IP and development.

Kenya for the African Group said, “We know clearly that we have different perspective on this issue.” In particular, developing countries would like that the conference include views on the challenges that IP might represent for development and not only how IP is a positive tool for socio-economic and cultural development.

South Africa mentioned a proposal by the Latin American and Caribbean countries group at the last session of the CDIP, to allow countries to propose new names on the list, but for lack of consensus, the proposal was withdrawn (IPW, WIPO, 26 May 2014). This was supported by some developing countries. Uruguay suggested fixing a date for the conference as a first step.

Group B remarked on the positive atmosphere in this session of the CDIP and said further consultations with other members might help find a solution accommodating all parties. The item was expected to be taken up again in plenary.

Project on IP and Tourism

The CDIP considered a proposal [pdf] by Egypt for a pilot project on: “Intellectual Property and Tourism: Supporting Development Objectives and Preservation of Cultural Heritage.” The project was first suggested in November 2013.

A number of developed countries said they could not support any work on traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as those subjects were dealt with in the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). They asked that the proposed project be revised to accommodate their concerns.

At the last WIPO General Assembly, no decisions on the future work of the IGC could be reached and the fate of the committee for the coming year remains unclear.

A number of developing countries supported the project and remarked how important the tourism sector is for their countries. This included Ecuador, Mexico, Iran, Indonesia, Rwanda, India, Tanzania, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Chile, Nigeria, and South Africa, some of which asked to be candidates for the pilot project.

Egypt requested that the agenda item not be closed in order to allow for some consultations with countries having concerns with the project, and said the project was not intended to go beyond the work of the IGC. The project, he said, is not aimed at norm-setting or positive laws, but simply an ad hoc project on IP and tourism. He also remarked on the influence on tourism of reputations of places or products.

 

Image Credits: WIPO Flickr